T. S. DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel. The petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that Court process was issued and the witness in question refused to accept the same, the trial Court passed an order that the petitioner would have no right to examine the witness. Earlier the petitioner had shown willingness to bring the witness at his own responsibility. The witness was not present on the date fixed that is on 16th of January, 1996. The trial Court as noticed above has passed an order that the petitioner would not have a right now to get that witness examined. R. S. Sarkaria, J. who later adorned the Bench of Supreme Court of India in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh v. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishan, AIR 1969 Punj and Har 197, observed as under in these matter (Para 7):-"but it can be said with equal force that there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code which expressly inhibits the service of summonses by this mode. which has come to be known as Dasti process. On the other hand, the language of Rule 8 is very flexible. The words 'as nearly as may be' in that Rule are wide enough to permit the issue of Dasti process for witnesses, also. However, it seems to me that such process is not to be issued in the first instance. It is to be issued only if the party requests for the issue of such process or is otherwise ready and willing to do so when he is precluded by his own default from receiving further assistance of the Court for the issue of process or summonses for service in the normal way through the process serving Agency of the Court. In such cases, permission is granted to the defaulting party to take out Dasti process, only as a matter of concession. "it was further observed :-"in Roshan Singh v. Chiranji Lal, AIR 1953 MB 48, the trial Court had refused to issue summonses to the witnesses of a party on the ground that the applicant had failed to accompany the process-server for the service of the smmonses on the witnesses. The party was also directed to produce his witnesses in the Court himself on the next day of hearing and to pay costs of the adjournment. The party was also directed to produce his witnesses in the Court himself on the next day of hearing and to pay costs of the adjournment. Dixit, J. held that the order of the trial Court was clearly illegal, because there was no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure casting an obligation on the party to accompany the process-server for having the summonses served on his witnesses. It is the duty of the process-server to serve the summonses and if he fails to do so, parties cannot be punished for his negligence. "it was concluded :-"promptitude and despatch in the dispensation of justice is a desirable thing but not at the cost of justice. All rules of procedure are nothing but handmaids of justice. They cannot be construed in a manner which would hamper justice. As a general rule, evidence should never be shut out. The fullest opportunity should always be given to the parties to give evidence if the justice of the case requires it. " ( 2 ) THE learned counsel submits that once the Court chooses to give its assistance then it should not be withdrawn. ( 3 ) TAKING into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial precedent noted above the petitioner is given one opportunity to get the witness summoned. The petitioner would indicate to the Court below the name of the witness. The petitioner would be at liberty to take assistance of the Court process-server also. If requested process-server be also deputed. It is, however, made clear, that the responsibility to get the above steps taken would be purely of the petitioner. Let the requisite process be issued for the appearance of the witness for 15-2-1996. In case there the witness, is served and he fails to appear then, Bailable warrants be issued for appearance for 22-2-1996. ( 4 ) AS per the counsel appearing for the respondents the trial Court has shown much indulgence and twenty-five adjournments have already been granted in this regard. It is also stated that the suit is pending since 1983. The petitioner would pay costs. Costs Rs. 500/ -. Costs to be paid before the process is issued. Disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. .